Here's what gives the Constitution its power:
"A member of the 13th Massachusetts noted that his regiment "listened with respectful attention" while officers urged re-enlistment and extolled the valor of old soldiers, but he added: "It was very sweet to hear all this, but the 13th was not easily moved by this kind of talk. The boys knew too well what sacrifices they had made, and longed to get home again and, if possible, resume the places they had left." In the end the 13th refused to re-enlist, except for a handful who signed up for places in another regiment".
Altogether, there are few facts in American history more remarkable than the fact that so many of these veterans did finally re-enlist —probably slightly more than half of the total number whose terms were expiring. The proffered bounty seems to have had little influence on them. The furlough was much better bait. To men who had not seen their homes for more than two and one half years, a solid month of freedom seemed like an age. A member of the 5th Maine said that it actually seemed as if the war might somehow end before the furloughs would expire, and he wrote of the men who re-enlisted: "What tempted these men? Bounty? No. The opportunity to go home."
It was not hardship that held men back. The 100th Pennsylvania had been marooned in eastern Tennessee for months, cut off from supplies and subsisting on two ears of corn per day per man, but when the question of re-enlistment came up only 27 out of the 393 present for duty refused to sign.
In the 6th Wisconsin, which had done as much costly fighting as any regiment in the army, it was noted that the combat men were re-enlisting almost to a man; it was the cooks, hostlers, clerks, teamsters, and others on non-combat duty who were holding back. And the dominant motive, finally, seems to have been a simple desire to see the job through. The government in its wisdom might be doing everything possible to show the men that patriotism was for fools; in the end, the veterans simply refused to believe it. A solid nucleus did sign the papers, pledging that the army would go on, and by the end of March Meade was able to tell the War Depart- ment that 26,767 veterans had re-enlisted.
The men signed up without illusions. A company in the 19th Massachusetts was called together to talk things over. The regiment had left most of its men on various battlefields, in hospitals, and to Southern prison camps, and this company now mustered just thirteen men and one wounded officer. These considered the matter, and one man finally said: "They use a man here just the same as they do a turkey at a shooting match, fire at it all day and if they don't kill it raffle it off in the evening; so with us, if they can't kill you in three years they want you for three more—but I will stay." And a comrade spoke up: "Well, if new men won't finish the job, old men must, and as long as Uncle Sam wants a man, here is Ben Falls."
The regiment's historian, recording this remark, pointed out that Ben Falls was killed two months later in battle at Spotsylvania Court House."
"A Stillness at Appomattox" by Bruce Catton, pp. 35-36
The Constitution is just words on paper.
Of course, by this time the rebel armies were melting away.
Walt
You quote Federalist 58 entirely out of context – as usual. The section in question dealt with requirements for a quorum in the House of Representatives, not the secession of States from the union. After all, State secession can hardly have occurred “in States,” now could it? You should be looking in Federalist 43, which details Mr. Madison’s views regarding the proposed secession of the ratifying States from the so-called ‘perpetual union’ formed under the Articles of Confederation:
”...(I)t may be observed that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncanceled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”
Note the recommendation regarding “moderation...and prudence.” What was your quote from the Illinois State Journal? “The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war.” How nice: “any resistance...will lead to war.” Hardly a course anyone would consider exemplary of “moderation...and prudence.” It would seem the bloodthirsty people of Illinois were unfamiliar with the Federalist Papers as well.
By the way, thanks for the documentation suggesting that the people of Illinois, at least, considered any interruption in the collection of tariffs to be grounds for war. I’m surprised, friend Walt: you have always insisted that tariffs were not an issue.
;>)
In fact, as I recall, [Mr. Madison] was not alive in 1860.
What are you suggesting – that at any given time, the specific written words of the United States Constitution mean only what some unspecified portion of living Americans think they mean? What an eccentric notion! Thomas Jefferson was “not alive in 1860,” but that hardly altered the meaning of his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, or his 1825 Declaration and Protest on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them. But then, you always did seem to have difficulty with the concept of written words having specific meanings.
;>)
You dodged a straight question. I'll posit it again. Maybe you just misunderstood...
Who was right?
Actually, Mr. Madison answered the question quite clearly:
“A union of the States containing such an ingredient [as the use of force against a State] seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound...”
“Maybe you just misunderstood:” the Illinois State Journal was obviously not “right” to propose (in Mr. Madison’s words) “(t)he use of force agst. a State.” As the events following Mr. Lincoln’s call for troops make undeniably clear, such a use of force did indeed “look more like a declaration of war” to nearly half of the Southern States – and those States responded to federal military action by seceding from the union, dissolving “all previous compacts by which [they] might be bound...”
But perhaps you were simply referring to some twisted concept of “right” supposedly conferred by superior military force? Hmm?
;>)
Here's what gives the Constitution its power...
The passage (not surprisingly) makes absolutely no mention of the Constitution. Perhaps you really are suggesting that superior military force determines what is “right”...
The Constitution is just words on paper.
Allow me to refer you (once again) to the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1803
Quite obviously, my friend, you prefer a “blank paper” to the rule of law. No wonder you voted for William Jefferson Clinton...